Re: [PATCH 2/2] x86: Allow disabling of sys_iopl, sys_ioperm

[H. Peter Anvin]

On 07/14/2011 03:40 PM, Mike Waychison wrote:
> On Thu, Jul 14, 2011 at 3:35 PM, H. Peter Anvin <hpa@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>> On 07/14/2011 03:31 PM, Andrew Morton wrote:
>>>
>>> sys_iopl() is missing asmlinkage.
>>>
>>> It would be far more conventional to use cond_syscall().  Perhaps by
>>> adding a CONFIG_X86 area into kernel/sys_ni.c
>>>
>>> fyi, I'm offering special deals on checkpatch.pl site licenses this month.
>>
>> Again, I don't think this makes sense as a compile-time-only option.
> 
> echo "enabled" > /proc/sys/kernel/iopl_available
> echo "disabled" > /proc/sys/kernel/iopl_available
> echo "locked" > /proc/sys/kernel/iopl_available
> 

I'm suspecting that it might be cleaner to have kernel/ioaccess and
kernel/ioaccess_lock as two booleans (0 or 1)...

	-hpa
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/